ATI Radeon 8500 vs GeForce 310M

Place in the ranking	1324	1499
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.52	0.06
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code name	GT218	R200
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	10 January 2010 (14 years ago)	14 August 2001 (23 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	16	no data
Core clock speed	606 MHz	275 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	60 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	2.200
Floating-point processing power	0.04896 TFLOPS	no data
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	8

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	AGP 4x
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 1 GB	64 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	275 MHz
Memory bandwidth	10.67 GB/s	8.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	8.1
Shader Model	4.1	no data
OpenGL	3.3	1.4
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 310M 0.31
+1450%

ATI 8500 0.02

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 310M 118
+1867%

ATI 8500 6

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	4−5	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	4−5	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	4−5	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.31	0.02
Recency	10 January 2010	14 August 2001
Chip lithography	40 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	23 Watt

GeForce 310M has a 1450% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 275% more advanced lithography process, and 64.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 310M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8500 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Radeon 8500 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.